Victoria Secret: first model with Down Syndrome

It really is amazing to me that they changed TONS of things from the comics to the movies and the one thing you're focused on is that there is a character that uses sign language.

I'm not sure you know much about the other characters lol, you're using wiki. They changed a bunch about all of the characters lol, there is an entire list of changes they've made about characters and the lore entirely and the one thing you're mad about is that there is a character that uses sign language.

You either really have a thing against deaf people or you listened too much to some youtube grifter also rant about this deaf superhero and now just parroting it here.

Well, I've actually read LOTR and there are handicapped characters in it. See, I actually engage in this stuff, from Star Wars, Star Trek, LOTR, Marvel, etc etc. I don't need to google it to tell you. That was me in school, the geeky kid that also liked basketball, the latter being the only thing that kept me socially relevant in school lol.

It's always funny when these fake fans start talking about stuff they don't know about, talking about how 'woke' or 'liberal' the series are now not knowing that these things were created by some of the most woke people ever. Stan Lee, Roddenberry, Lucas, these people are and were huge liberals and their ideologies blended into their work.

You want to argue with me about it or Stan Lee?



And if you think this is just promotional junk there are TONS of old Stan Lee quotes about diversity, racism, and how he felt it was important that his comics/stories have political and important messages.

 

I guess my point is they aren't engaged in the same culture war we are.

For example, China (the government) is no fan of black people. Tencent, major video game corp, has reportedly told some of their devs to have no black characters in its games. Genshin Impact, one of the most popular chinese games...has 0 black characters in it, hell, it barely has any tan characters in it last I checked.

While Russia just a month ago I think, I'll have to find the story, banned a game for having too much LGBTQ+ stuff in it.

Disney knows its way around the world, it knows that when they release Star Wars and make Finn a major character that people in the US/America/Africa/South America, might appreciate people like Finn being a main character or Poe...but will hide these characters when advertising in a region like China.

I feel like America's culture war feels shallow. We have people complaining about Minnie Mouse wearing pants or how the Green M&M isn't 'sexy' anymore. Honestly, I feel it's so shallow that companies are using it for free advertisement. That addidas ad some weeks ago was a perfect example of a company intentionally trying to trigger a more traditional/conservative crowd just for the reaction of it. They really just threw bare boobs on twitter to advertise their bras...which were nowhere in the post any way...and trended on twitter for the whole day for that.

This isn't to say there aren't people that feel strongly here about the culture war, obviously there is, but when we're arguing about why minnie mouse has on pants or why potato head is no longer MR. Potatohead I honestly wonder if people in a boardroom are laughing at the reactions sometimes.

Hasbro, they are definitely making things just to trigger people for a reaction. I mean look at this...


This was trending on twitter when they did this...and suddenly people start talking about Monopoly. For a day at least it can be relevant.

So I feel like America's culture war has been co-opted by corporations so much that people don't even realize their reaction is free advertisement, free word of mouth, for the company.

 

Ouch!

 

You are probably right here, that it's just a corp wanting to make more money...

but do you think when they hired and promoted Tyra Banks it was this pure thing? No. They were promoting diversity at the same time and had women like Tyra and Naomi to promote diversity in a time where it was scarce. They still used those women for sales.

The modeling industry as a whole has exploited women period to the point where many commit suicide. Think about that. Women that hit the genetic lottery committing suicide.

Thankfully, it's starting to get better and that's because of representation. Now you can see plus size models walking the runway and while you might look at that and go "Yuck" and that's fair, 100% nothing wrong with a man or anyone having their preferences...it's important because it tells women that hey, you don't have to be a skeleton to fit some standard of beauty.

Is it just a corp pandering? Sure. In the end it is...but there are real people in that corporation making those changes that feel like they might be doing good as well.

 

That's exactly right. Corporations aren't just sensitive to their customers, they are sensitive to their employees, and especially to the directors and actors who are involved in creating content and making that content valuable.

It's a grand irony of what entertainment is - inclusive so long as you are attractive. Black, transgender, white, handicap, thin, fat, all can be made room for - but you better be attractive and if not strong in that department make up for it with some serious charm and charisma. Who thought the pretty people would use their power to influence the world?

But the whole argument against "wokedness" is ten times dumber than any argument for it. The mockery and antagonism against it reflects a deep deep insecurity amongst those people...otherwise, they would be like the rest of the mainstream and not really care.

 

Well I don't know, I don't know the leaders of fashion that well but I imagine that makeup is more profitable than lingerie because more women use makeup than lingerie. Lingerie is not something that is in every woman's wardrobe it is more of a luxury purchase like Jordans while makeup is more like...an everyday use kind of thing. A woman might wear that lingerie for valentines day and that's it while she will buy the same makeup brand every day because that's what shes comfy with.

So I'm not sure its a fair comparison. Jenners and the Kardashians sell makeup and do it well. Makeup is huge business.

But VS is pandering to women now almost exclusively. times change. Before, a husband would buy this stuff for his wife but nowadays a woman just goes and buys it herself. I just don't see the problem in that, from what I see, women are reacting more positively towards the brand and that's what matters to them.

I looked it up and it looks like VS as a whole has been filling their leadership positions with more women and so its natural that the marketing and advertising and direction for the brand would change.

I don't think pandering is wrong either. You think there's a coincidence that there are Gatorade commericals for NBA games or Gilette commercials? They know their audience. All companies pander. That's why you won't see Luke Combs performing in the middle of the NBA All-star game. They know their audience.

That's why NIKE leaned hard into Kapernick and ignored a bunch of rural people burning their nike shoes...they know that rural person probably has one pair of nike shoes he bought on sale or something while the innercity kid buys them yearly and collects them.

So yeah, it's pandering, that's fine though. They want to sell bras and if you have breasts they want you to buy their bras. Makes sense to me.

 

why is this in the D&D?

 

Honestly, at this point it doesn't even matter if they are sincere because it can still bring positive change.

They are no longer objectifying women to the degree they were and they are exposing a lot of people to other groups of people they other would not think about and they are putting those people in a position of positivity.

Of course VS doesn't care, but I am not concerned about that.

 

Right, it's always attractive. If people want to call out the lack of diversity that is a real argument to have. Where is the superhero that just looks like an ugly average dude?

But the best example of a corporation having well-intentioned employees is Star Trek and current Marvel.

Disney just wants to make money, that's it. We all know that.

But classic Star Trek had Uhura and Sulu and no matter what, Roddenberry fought to have those characters on the show. Despite pushback he fought for them. This is an example of you just said, corporations being sensitive to their employees. Moving forward Star Trek would continue to be diverse but this had more to do with its directors and producers pushing for it. Now I'm sure Roddenberry couldn't have made Uhura the captain of the show but he pushed the boundary as much as he was allowed to at the time.

Same for Marvel. The creative people behind the MCU push for this stuff and it was started by Stan Lee that was huge about this stuff. Black Panther was created by a white man that simply felt that his cast of heroes should be diverse. Stan Lee and Kirby. Here is why Lee created Black Panther...

"I had a lot of friends who were black and we had artists who were black. So it occurred to me... why aren't there any black heroes?"

So this, at the time since Stan was the big wig of Marvel at the time, was an example of a company being sensitive towards its employees. He had black artists and black friends so he felt it was natural that there would be a black superhero.

So yes while companies do things only for money there are people in those companies with good intentions. I feel like the results matter more than the intentions sometimes.

I know I loved Star Wars and I loved that Vader was voiced by a black man or that Lando was in the movie. I loved Deep Space Nine because Captain Sisko...it didn't mean I disliked white characters like Captain Kirk or Picard, Captain Picard or Captain Sisko, you can't go wrong with either, The Next Generation vs Deep Space Nine is a classic trekkie debate...but it just felt good to be included in such a major way.

While Victoria's Secret likely is doing this to pander or virtue signal the result is that some down syndrome girl somewhere might feel a little better about herself than before. It's making it so people are more aware of what the condition is and how it affects people and humanizes them to people that might not know much about the condition.

 

Yes, in the 50's and 60's being inclusive and diverse was considered pioneering and bold.

Today it's called being "woke"

 

There are differences but not as many as you would expect.

That is the government, and there is no doubt that governments will do what the can to censure. Especially one like China.

Not a surprise, again it is a government. There are still a lot of bigots in Russia in my experience, but especially in the younger (under 50) demographics there is a more support for "woke" causes than you would think. There have even been protests there for LGBTQ rights. The government can try to censure all they want, people will eventually be exposed to it.

Of course they do, they are a business and know that the government in China and many Chinese are bigots in mainland China. However, not all are and people will be influenced by seeing characters of different types being cast in a positive way.

Some of it IS shallow. Also there is no question that the business world has attempted to profit off of it, but at this point I do not care. There are positive portrayals of groups of people in the media and in commercial society than before and it DOES influence people, especially younger people.

Yes, some people are just looking for something to get triggered about because they are used to the status quo and don't want change.... it is as old as time, and it is a waste of time.... because things always change.

It makes people think, and that is usually a good thing.

For example I rolled my eyes when I say the "end racism" outside the end zone in the Super Bowl. It is obviously pandering and it doesn't reflect the NFL at all.... but it at least is making people think, and as people's values and opinions change, corporate America will eventually have to change as well.